Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Quantitative comparison of PD-L1 IHC assays against NIST standard reference material 1934
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Quantitative comparison of PD-L1 IHC assays against NIST standard reference material 1934
Do you wish to request the book?
Quantitative comparison of PD-L1 IHC assays against NIST standard reference material 1934
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Quantitative comparison of PD-L1 IHC assays against NIST standard reference material 1934
2022
Overview
Companion diagnostic immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests are developed and performed without incorporating the tools and principles of laboratory metrology. Basic analytic assay parameters such as lower limit of detection (LOD) and dynamic range are unknown to both assay developers and end users. We solved this problem by developing completely new tools for IHC—calibrators with units of measure traceable to National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) Standard Reference Material (SRM) 1934. In this study, we demonstrate the clinical impact and opportunity for incorporating these changes into PD-L1 testing. Forty-one laboratories in North America and Europe were surveyed with newly-developed PD-L1 calibrators. The survey sampled a broad representation of commercial and laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). Using the PD-L1 calibrators, we quantified analytic test parameters that were previously only inferred indirectly after large clinical studies. The data show that the four FDA-cleared PD-L1 assays represent three different levels of analytic sensitivity. The new analytic sensitivity data explain why some patients’ tissue samples were positive by one assay and negative by another. The outcome depends on the assay’s lower LOD. Also, why previous attempts to harmonize certain PD-L1 assays were unsuccessful; the assays’ dynamic ranges were too disparate and did not overlap. PD-L1 assay calibration also clarifies the exact performance characteristics of LDTs relative to FDA-cleared commercial assays. Some LDTs’ analytic response curves are indistinguishable from their predicate FDA-cleared assay. IHC assay calibration represents an important transition for companion diagnostic testing. The new tools will improve patient treatment stratification, test harmonization, and foster accuracy as tests transition from clinical trials to broad clinical use.
